1. Balloni 1
Lynda Balloni
GEO 2302: Political Geography
Dr. Eric Ross
5 November 2014
The Spectrum of Unitary and Federal States
The modern sovereign territorial state is generally currently divided into two categories
of political organization: the unitary and the federal state. “Unitary” is derived from the Latin
unitas (unity) which in turn is rooted from unus (one), while federal, on the other hand, traces its
origin to foederis (league). The implications of their roots connotes the contemporary definitions
of each word, which, in the case of unitary states, imply the oneness, cohesiveness, and
homogeneity of a state, whereas the federal state suggests the alliance, contract, and/or
coexistence between a state’s regions and people (Glassner and Fahrer 108-109). A third
category of state that is referenced less frequently than unitary and federal states but perhaps
provides a more accurate label for states today is the regional state. It can be used to describe
either unitary states that gradually grant more autonomy to their separate regions or to federal
states that a) were never actually federations but merely put on a façade for the sake of appeasing
their people or b) have gradually given way to Unitarianism or alter between federalism and
Unitarianism (114). Despite its usefulness in the categorizing of modern states, this paper will
focus on the apparent contrast between unitary and federal states rather than regional states.
Although they come from roots with conflicting definitions and hold very different implications
as to the identity of the state and how it should function, federal and unitary states exist upon a
spectrum, rather than in a fixed dichotomy, and often have a tendency to evolve into an entity
resembling their respective counterparts, typically due to nationalist pressures.
According to Daniel J. Elazar, the modern states’ political systems developed via one of
three “models of politity” of which two are conducive to unitary states and one has a greater

2. Balloni 2
tendency towards fostering federalism. The first is a hierarchical development, which stems
from the distribution of power amongst different levels with the “higher” levels exercising power
over those below them. The second is the central-periphery model where authority is
concentrated in a single center (the “core” of a state in the words of Glassner and Fahrer) that is
subject to varying levels of influence by the states periphery. The third model, supposedly
tending towards federalism, is referred to as the federal or matrix model in which multiple
regions band together and form an agreement (usually called a constitution) that gives each area
(relatively) equal power. Ideally in this model there are no “higher” or “lower” levels as in the
hierarchical model (238-239). Figures 1 and 2 below represent a very simplistic visualization of
the direction of power within both unitary and federal states.
Fig. 1: “Unitary State Power Distribution” Fig. 2: “Federal State Power Distribution
Hardin, Bradley. “Federal, Confederate, and Unitary Governments.
http://www.bradleyhardin.com/gov/compgov/Federal,%20Confederate%20and%20Unitary%20Governments.htm
Glassner and Fahrer also wrote that Unitarianism and federalism each have an ideal size,
shape, and concentration of their population. Unitarianism generally functions better in smaller
states with dense populations that are compact in shape and have only one core area. Each of
these factors is conducive to the development of a unitary state as they usually imply the
existence of a more homogenous population which will be more accepting of centralized

3. Balloni 3
authority (109). Unitary states can also be placed into two broad categories: centralized states,
which meet most of Glassner and Fahrer characteristics and have rather stable populations, and
highly-centralized states that are either former communist states, one-party states, or explicit
dictatorships (111). The unitary states which fall into the first category were most likely
developed after the model set by the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, thus their existence is still
dominant in Western Europe today (Elazar 243). Unitary states are also the dominant system of
government within former colonies of Western Europe, an idea that will be explored more in
depth later on in this paper (Glassner and Fahrer 109).
In contrast to Unitarianism, federalism can be well suited to larger states that may be
fragmented, prorupt or elongated, have more than one core and/or have populations which are
sporadically spread throughout the state (112). Nicholas Aroney gives three different definitions
of federalism: the “distribution of powers between central and regional governments, prescribed
in a written document (usually called a constitution) and typically enforced by an independent
judiciary”, one which “emphasizes, not so much the division of powers between central and
regional governments, as the idea of several governments (or several political communities
represented by such governments) participating in a system of government in which they each
share and to which they each are submitted”, and finally one “more concerned with the political
sources from which the federal system derives its origin and, more specifically, the founding
document” (33). In contrast, Kavalski and Zolkos divide federal states into two categories based
on their existence rather than emergence. Their territorial federalism consists of one national
community that divides and diffuses its power whereas multi-national or plural federalism
attempts to accommodate the desire of national minorities for self-governance without granting
them sovereignty (2). To demonstrate the blurred division between unitary and federal states,

4. Balloni 4
this paper will focus on the potential of two “unitary” states, one a former colonial power and the
other a former colony, to transition into a federal system.
Despite the fact that it encompasses four distinct regions with distinguished national
identities, the United Kingdom, as displayed below in Figure 3, has held to the dominant state
model within Western Europe of Unitarianism. (For the purposes of this paper, it will focus on
only the evolutions of Scotland and Wales within the UK.)
Fig. 3: “United Kingdom with Territories”
BBC News. “United Kingdom Country Profile” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1038758.stm
Although, since 1997, the UK has begun a gradual transition to a system resembling federalism,
but even with this shift it lacks one factor the is generally pivotal to the development of a federal
state, a Constitution (Laffin and Thomas 96). Due to their nationalist demands, Scotland and
Wales have slowly been granted varying levels of autonomy from the central government.
Scotland gained the Scottish Office in 1885 and a Secretary of State in 1926, while Wales
achieved the creation of both a Welsh Office and Secretary of State in 1964. Unfortunately for
these regions, even with these changes their nations were not actually intended to have a
governing role within the state which would entail making authoritative decisions and holding
power over their territory (91). From 1974-1979, prospects for the regions started to brighten as
the more liberal Labour government took control of the UK and attempted to create both Scottish
and Welsh assemblies so they could have some sort of legislative power, but the measure did not

5. Balloni 5
pass. Once the Conservative government headed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher took
control in 1979, the outlook became bleak once again as both she and her successor John Major
saw the territorial governments of Scotland and Wales as and “irritating anomaly” to the control
of their state (94). A positive outlook for the increased autonomy of Scotland and Wales did not
resurface until the Labour Party took control once again in 1997, so Scotland obtained their own
parliament in Edinburgh and Wales in turn received an elected assembly (89).
Scotland has gained more headway in achieving autonomy over their region than their
counterpart Wales, as their parliament has the power to legislate anything that is not specifically
assigned to the Westminster Parliament of the UK. Wales’ National Assembly, however, only
holds specific powers delegated to them. Still, neither region holds any authority over foreign
affairs, defense, macroeconomic policy, fiscal and common market policy, broadcasting or social
security. These distinctions between authority as well as England’s continued existence as an
unregionalized area within the state have created what Laffin and Thomas have referred to as
“asymmetry” within the UK. They are moving away from Unitarianism, but are far from the
relatively equal power of a state’s regions that is typical to an ideal federalist model. The
European Union has even aided in legitimizing the autonomy of the UK’s territories by
instituting policies which make regionalization a European norm rather than a hindrance to the
centrality of the United Kingdom alone (95). Although England has trended towards adopting a
federal system of government, as demonstrated by its granting of legislative bodies to Scotland
and Wales as well as its incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into its own
laws (creating a skeleton of something like a constitution) it is still missing some Upper
Chamber for regional representatives and a system of inter-governmental relationships as are
characteristic of federal states (106). Although the UK maintains its status as a unitary state,

6. Balloni 6
particularly from their own viewpoint which holds pride in their centralization and unity, it is
progressively moving along the spectrum of political systems to inch closer to federalism.
After receiving its independence from the Netherlands in 1945, Indonesia had a federal
state system implemented upon it by its former colonizers. The new government took effect in
1949, but only lasted all of nine months due to unrest over the system, which has been speculated
was largely due to contempt for a system that was placed upon the new state by the country from
which it was finally free. Although it is likely that the ousting of the federal system was more
due to issues over principles of power felt by Indonesian elites at the thought of the Dutch
forcing this type of government upon them than the population at large rejecting the model,
disdain for federalism still permeates within the state today. Therefore, by 1959 Indonesia
returned to their Constitution of 1945, which although drafted undemocratically, was at least
written by Indonesian hands, and divided the state into “large and small” regions which would
have undefined amounts of autonomy. The Constitution also granted abundant power to the
state’s executive branch, thus giving its president the ability to determine each regions level of
autonomy and cementing Indonesia’s position as a unitary state with strong central authority
despite its many diverse and fragmented territories (Ferrazzi 66-67).
Indonesia’s government was separated into a three-tier system, with its central authority
holding the most power, 26 relatively large regions or provinces granted little autonomy out of
fear of separatist movements, and over 300 small districts and cities supposedly holding more
autonomy than the second tier (64). Indonesia’s geographical existence as an archipelago is
quite conductive to secessionism whose supporters’ uprisings in attempt to achieve sovereignty,
not just autonomy, from the state in 2002 are shown in Figure 4 below.

7. Balloni 7
A precedent was
set of sticking to a
rhetoric of the
importance of
regional autonomy
while granting most
Fig. 4: “Indonisian Revolts 2002”
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. “Communal conflicts and secessionist pressures have been on the rise in Indonesia,
which has one of the world’s most religiously diverse populations.”
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/60493/Communal-conflicts-and-secessionist-pressures-have-been-on-
the-rise
of the state’s power to central authority under the rule of President Soeharto and his “New
Order” (1965-1998). He maintained the unity of the state by strangling, or at least decreasing,
any utterances of resistance to the central power of the state from any region. He would grant
varying levels of autonomy to regions based on whether he determined if they would use their
autonomy to strengthen their bonds to the center and recognize that autonomy was a right and
not a privilege and should be used to achieve national goals of the state. During and even after
his rule, an utterance that was often recited was “pusat pusatnya daerah, dan daerah daerah
pusat” (the center is the region’s center, and the region is the center’s region), which highlighted
the state’s supposed commitment to its central authority and the unitary system (67-69).
Under Soeharto, districts were given more authority than regions, in theory, supposedly
because they were “closest to the people” when in reality it was more likely out of fear that
giving more power to the larger regions would foster centrifugal forces or even secession (71).
The relationship between the second and third tier areas was supposed to remain non-
hierarchical, with each tier reporting to the central authority rather than each other, but as the
provincial governor of the larger regions was in charge of maintaining this “non-hierarchical”

8. Balloni 8
association and was essentially part of the central authority, the second tier still exercised its
power over the districts. To curb this phenomenon, in 1990, Soeharto stripped the provinces of
their legislative powers, leaving the provincial governors as their only source of authority, but
this merely granted more control to the central authority more so than unraveling the hierarchy
(73-74).
Soeharto was forced to step down as president due to severe unrest in May of 1998 and
was temporarily replaced by interim President Habibie who initiated some liberal alterations to
the state system, but he mostly stuck to the “New Order” assignment of more autonomy to
districts rather than regions (75). The resistance of federalism dating back to 1950 continued in
the 1998 presidential election, with only two of 28 candidates (and not very popular ones)
speaking in favor of federalism, few supporting stronger provincial autonomy and most opting to
protect the unitary state. Even the minor decentralization that took place under Habibie was
negatively received as it was done so undemocratically (76). In 1999 the new President Gus Dur
established his commitment to the importance of autonomy by instituting a State Minister for
Regional Autonomy (a position which had not previously existed) and even acknowledged that
federalism could be a solution to Indonesia’s problems with unrest and secessionist movements,
but he was still reluctant to use the term due to the continued negative connotation with the
Indonesian population of its colonial legacy (79). Now, some people outside and within the
government are beginning to push for federalism, but the central authority tries to stifle this idea
by granting more autonomy to its provinces and districts (82). The meaning behind federalism in
Indonesia will be a more powerful deciding factor as to whether it is implemented in the future
than the system’s function in reality (66).

9. Balloni 9
Both the United Kingdom (at least in England) and Indonesia hold a strong commitment
to the importance of Unitarianism to their national identity due to respective historical aspects of
their state, i.e., the Westphalian linkage of the UK and the colonial imposition of federalism in
Indonesia. Despite the perceived significance of the unitary system to the character of their state,
both the UK and Indonesia are slowly moving in a direction that resembles, at least in certain
aspects, the federal model, through gradually granting more and more autonomy it their
distinguished regions. Both states’ geographical and national fragmentation could be very
conducive to the existence of a federal system rather than their preferred Unitarianism. Both
states help to represent how political systems are in fact a spectrum rather than a dichotomy and
their tendency to gravitate towards the conflicting system, which is common within federal states
as well. As Glassner and Fahrer put it, “just as some unitary states show signs of adjustment in
the direction of decentralization, many federations are shifting toward greater centralization of
authority” (112). To generalize, states show a pattern of adjusting their political organization as
their existence progresses to accommodate for changes, if they wish to survive.

10. Balloni 10
Works Cited
Aroney, Nicholas. "Before Federalism?" The Ashgate Research Companion to Federalism. Ed.
Ann Ward and Lee Ward. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009. Print.
Elazar, Daniel J. "Contrasting Unitary and Federal Systems." International Political Science
Review 18.3 (1997): 238-43. JSTOR. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
Ferrazzi, Gabriele. "Using the 'F' Word: Federalism in Indonesia's Decentralization
Discourse." Publius 30.2. (2000): JSTOR. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
Glassner, Martin Ira, and Chuck Fahrer. Political Geography. 3rd ed. New York, New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 2004. Print.
Kavalski, Emilian, and Magdalena Zolkos. "Approaching the Phenomenon of Federal
Failure." Defunct Federalisms: Critical Perspectives on Federal Failure. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate, 2008. Print.
Laffin, Martin, and Alys Thomas. "The United Kingdom: Federalism in Denial?" Publius 29.3
(1999): 89-107. JSTOR. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.